4.5 Article

A study of pre-registration house officers' clinical skills

Journal

MEDICAL EDUCATION
Volume 34, Issue 12, Pages 1007-1012

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2000.00729.x

Keywords

clinical competence, standards; education, medical, graduate; medical staff, hospital

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Little is known about the ability of preregistration house officers (PRHOs) to perform basic clinical skills just prior to entering the medical register. Objectives To find out whether PRHOs have deficiencies in basic clinical skills and to determine if the PRHOs themselves or their consultants are aware of them. Method All 40 PRHOs at the Chelsea and Westminster and Whittington Hospitals were invited to undertake a 17 station OSCE of basic clinical skills. Each station was marked by one examiner completing an overall global score after completing an itemised checklist. An adequate station performance was the acquisition of a pass/borderline pass grade. Prior to the OSCE, a questionnaire was given to each PRHO asking them to rate their own abilities (on a 5-point scale) in the skills tested. A similar questionnaire was sent to the educational supervisors of each PRHO asking them to rate their house officer's ability in each of the same skills. Results Twenty-two PRHOs participated. Each PRHO failed to perform adequately a mean of 24 OSCE stations (SD 1.8, range 1-8). There were no significant correlations between OSCE performance and either self- or educational supervisor ratings. The supervisor felt unable to give an opinion on PRHO abilities in 18% of the skills assessed. Discussion This study suggests that PRHOs may have deficiencies in basic clinical skills at the time they enter the medical register. Neither the PRHOs themselves nor their consultants identified these deficiencies. A large regional study with sufficient power is required to explore the generalizability of these concerns in more detail.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available